I completely agree with you about Sprint/Verizon getting on the ball. Verizon is planning to switch to LTE for their 4G platform, which will leave Sprint as the only cell company in the USA with long term plans for WiMax.

Luckily for Sprint, should they decide to jump to LTE, the infrastructure they are rolling out is supposed to be compatible so they wouldn't have to scrap everything.

I believe 3G phones will allow both voice and data because the HSDPA and EDGE work on different radios. The CDMA/EVDO phones use the same radio for the different speeds, so it's data or vice, not both. According to some, EVDO Rev A is supposed to allow both, but for whatever reason, it hasn't been implemented.

With Sprint phones there is a DDTM setting which allows one to decide it incoming calls can interrupt/suspend an active data connection, or send calls to voice mail.

You can use the WiFi connection for data while on the phone, but as far as I know, it isn't possible using only the EV-DO connection. SVDO has been announced and is supposed to allow it.

I've got a Hero as well, when I have wireless off and am in a phone call and try to launch the web browser, it gives an error and says page will load when the network connection comes back.

Apparently there are still a few features that haven't been announced yet. One speculation is a possible deal bundling Nextflix (or similar) functionality where one would presumably use the WiMAX connection to stream movies on demand to the phone. It would only make sense that you could then output to your HDTV.

The CDMA technology that Sprint/Verizon use do not allow simultaneous voice and data connections, hence the latest AT&T/iPhone commercials.

Might want to check out a credit union. They may not have as many ATM locations, but I get free bill pay, ATM fee reimbursement (I get the $2.00 back BoA charges to use their ATM!), and high interest checking from LGECCU. Any fees I do get charged like overdraft, are fairly reasonable compared to a big bank.

The fact that companies charge you to make electronic payments is criminal. Luckily, Progressive is the only company I deal with that does that to me.

According to this EIA report the maximum net generation in the US last year was about 380 terawatt hours in August. The largest wind turbines typically found in the US are about 2.5 MW each. We'd need 150 millionof those to cover demand, assuming they all operate at 100% capacity. That's about 39 turbines per square mile covering the entire country. One you take into account an average capacity factor of 30%, you're looking at more than 450 million turbines.

Sure, we will get bigger and more efficient designs in the future, but I have a hard time seeing wind becoming more than 25-30% of the US grid.

Incidentally, it is the transportation infrastructure of the US that limits the capacity of wind turbines here. A 2.5MW machine is about all that will fit on a tractor trailer. Europe has a fair number of 5 MW machines, as those are shipped by rail. Off shore is getting up to 10 MW as the limits there are more with physical mass rather than transportable size.

I do believe as you do that wind will play an important part of power generation in the future. I can't agree more about wind being the silver bullet. Now cold fusion on the other hand...

Correlation between wind generation and demand is dependent on geographical location. In Texas, hot days have low wind and high demand. Obviously a problem. In the UK, winter has higher winds, and higher demand, so it works out better.

When sizing and planning a wind power plant, a rule of thumb is to count it as the peak power generation capacity times the capacity factor. That means if a 100 MW wind plant had a 40% capacity factor, it would be counted as a 40 MW dispatchable plant. That 100 MW of wind might be in the form of 50-60 wind turbines, but only one medium sized simple cycle gas turbine.

I don't practice IT, but I am gas turbine (power) engineer.

You do raise some points, but accusing the power generation companies of not developing alternative power is like accusing health insurance companies of not developing their own drugs to lower the cost of health care. The people you buy your electricity from aren't, for the large part, in the business of creating new technology.

Companies like Siemens, ABB, Vestas, GE and others are the ones looking into alternative power generation. There have been many advances in power generation, but until those advances are profitable, by themselves or through taxes and subsidies, they will never see the light of day.

The only time gas wouldn't flow is during a major global crisis or significant natural disaster. In those cases you're likely to lose power generation hardware as you are the gas supply.

FWIW, you don't even need a pipeline to supply fuel, all you need is a convoy of trucks and something that burns (gasoline, kerosene, natural gas, crude oil, etc) and you can make electricity.

I'm well aware of the complexities of the grid, I work for GE Energy and deal with these issues every day.

Wind can never supply the amount of power the USA (or europe) consumes at a minimum demand, so how could there ever be be a surplus to store?

There is another point to consider. Say in your planning for the worst case, the wind stops blowing for a week. That's a lot of energy to store, but it might be possible. But what happens if it doesn't blow for 2 weeks? A month? Natural gas is abundant, cheap, easy to move, store and convert to electricity. In your scenario, we'd need wind, storage, and some other form of duplicate generation.

As it is, there are power plants today that get used less than 100 hours a year, and they still make money. Until a true smart grid comes along that allows for remote management of home and commercial consumption, there will always be extra generation capacity (as opposed to storage).